You are here: / / STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM ...

STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The First Department determined the statute prohibiting criminal possession of a weapon as an act of terrorism was not preempted by federal law and was not unconstitutional:

​

Defendant has not met his burden of showing a “clear and unambiguous” congressional intent to preempt state legislation in the field of counterterrorism … . The statute is not expressly preempted by 18 USC § 2338, which states that federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought under 18 USC part I, chapter 113B. Although Penal Law § 490.25(1) uses language substantially identical to the federal definition of “domestic terrorism” (18 USC § 2331[5]), the Penal Law provision is a separate statute limited to the commission of enumerated state offenses.

Defendant also fails to establish implied federal preemption of state counterterrorism laws. Since a local community will typically be the most directly affected by a terrorist attack there … , the “federal interest” in counterterrorism is not “so dominant” as to “preclude” local enforcement of state laws against attempts to commit terrorist attacks … . Moreover, Congress has not enacted “a framework of regulation so pervasive” as to leave “no room for the States to supplement it” … . This is evident from the strong federal policy of cooperating with state and local governments to combat terrorism … .

The statute is not unconstitutionally vague in proscribing the “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” … , in light of the Court of Appeals’ construction of the emphasized phrase in People v Morales (20 NY3d 240, 247-249 [2012]). Defendant’s arguments that the statute is unconstitutionally vague in using the phrase “unit of government” among other terms are likewise unpersuasive … .

We also reject defendant’s challenges to the statute under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution. We are unpersuaded by defendant’s argument that the statute amounts to an impermissible content-based restriction of speech by increasing the felony level and sentencing range imposed on those who commit an enumerated criminal offense with the “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping” … . Such heightened punishment for defendant’s admitted intent of, among other things, influencing the United States government’s foreign policy by building and possessing a pipe bomb does not infringe his right to free speech … . Moreover, defendant’s argument that the statute is overbroad in chilling political speech is unavailing, since any overbreadth is not “substantial . . . in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep” … of prohibiting criminal conduct perpetrated with an intent commonly associated with terrorism … . People v Pimentel, 2017 NY Slip Op 02891, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)/TERRORISM, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)/CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM  (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

You might also like
A REJECTED PURCHASE OFFER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL TO PROVE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum Selection Clause In Invoices Not Enforceable Pursuant to UCC 207
DEFENDANT TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PIPE STICKING OUT OF THE FLOOR AND FELL INTO THE UNGUARDED ELEVATOR MECHANISM; THE DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Term “Entrustment” in a Policy Exclusion (In the Context of Entrustment of Property to Another) Interpreted to Encompass Entire Leased Premises
PLAINTIFF FELL IN A POTHOLE IN THE PATH FROM THE BUS TO THE CURB, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff-Resident of an Adult Care Facility Did Not Have Standing to Object to An Informal Procedure Used by the Department of Health (DOH) Re: the Inspection of Adult Care Facilities (Affording a Meeting Between the Facility and DOH Prior to the Publication of an Inspection Report)—Standing to Challenge Governmental Action Discussed in Some Depth
MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TRIAL, IT IS IMPROPER TO DETERMINE ADDITIONAL LABOR COST DUE TO DELAY BY USING A DEFENDANT’S PRECONTRACT ESTIMATE OF LABOR COST (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED... COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY...